| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » A Grand Illusion of Time |
|
Page 3 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Uncle Al |
 Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 11:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mike |
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 11:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
rie...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
[quote:52a724b107]A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept. It requires an intelligent memory...
[/quote:52a724b107]
[quote:52a724b107]Peter Riedt
[/quote:52a724b107]
Only time? everything people conceptualize are just that, concepts.
But it is different to say that time is a grand illusion. If it is,
speed cannot be really defined, it is also an illusion. So is then
change in position. Then there is no change, it is an illusion. But
simple observation tells you there is change. Change from day to night
for example requires revolution of the earth. Let us call this amount
of revolution the TIME it takes from day to night. That's no illusion.
Time naturally arises from observation. It is an empirical fact.
Mike |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 11:49 am |
|
|
|
|
In article <LKjge.87863$so7.5293127@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> writes:
[quote:8b5cecd030]
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:Gajge.30$25.5446@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <iYige.87842$u31.5433473@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com
writes:
riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1115797940.503099.299550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk, the term 'moment' has two connotations. One is part of human time
concepts. The other is used by me to explain the concept of causes for
the changes in the universe. Perhaps there is a better definition.
We define time as what we read on a clock, and then we look
at nature and Describe What Happens In How Much Time.
Each having our own clock, we then Compare Our Results.
That is extremely simple, straighforward and unambiguous,
and it is what physicists do.
For some very strange reason garbage collectors and armchair
philosophers always look for something much more complicated.
They seem to be satisfied when they can put together a bunch
of ideas that they can't properly express and that no one else
can properly understand. Bizarre.
Oh, it is but the time honered technique of "look ma, I'm profound,
I'm saying stuff nobody can understand". Bizarre? Nah. "Pathetic" is
more like it.
I'm looking for a non-pathetic counterexample, but
I can't immediately find one.
[/quote:8b5cecd030]
Don't think there are many.
[quote:8b5cecd030]So yes, perhaps this is what drives them. Bizarre ;-)
Well, yes:-)[/quote:8b5cecd030]
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 12:06 pm |
|
|
|
|
In article <YYmdnebnDY0KbhzfRVn-gA@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
[quote:5250314314]In article <LKjge.87863$so7.5293127@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com
wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:Gajge.30$25.5446@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <iYige.87842$u31.5433473@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "Dirk Van de
moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com
writes:
riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1115797940.503099.299550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk, the term 'moment' has two connotations. One is part of human
time
concepts. The other is used by me to explain the concept of causes
for
the changes in the universe. Perhaps there is a better definition.
We define time as what we read on a clock, and then we look
at nature and Describe What Happens In How Much Time.
Each having our own clock, we then Compare Our Results.
That is extremely simple, straighforward and unambiguous,
and it is what physicists do.
For some very strange reason garbage collectors and armchair
philosophers always look for something much more complicated.
They seem to be satisfied when they can put together a bunch
of ideas that they can't properly express and that no one else
can properly understand. Bizarre.
Oh, it is but the time honered technique of "look ma, I'm profound,
I'm saying stuff nobody can understand". Bizarre? Nah. "Pathetic" is
more like it.
I'm looking for a non-pathetic counterexample, but
I can't immediately find one.
Listen to any speech made by Hillary Clinton.
So yes, perhaps this is what drives them. Bizarre ;-)
It's snob appeal. A visual example is somebody who
claims to appreciate certain displays in art galleries.
Aye, exactly:-)[/quote:5250314314]
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AllYou! |
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 12:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42823C85.B977CB6E@hate.spam.net...
[quote:9764b32449]riedt1@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept.
[snip crap]
Tell that to radioactive decay half-life.
[/quote:9764b32449]
Your notion of time could be totally eliminated, and nothing would change WRT radioactive
decay. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al |
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 1:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"AllYou!" wrote:
[quote:f1d0f72e46]
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42823C85.B977CB6E@hate.spam.net...
riedt1@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept.
[snip crap]
Tell that to radioactive decay half-life.
Your notion of time could be totally eliminated, and nothing would change WRT radioactive
decay.
[/quote:f1d0f72e46]
You are horribly wrong. Half-life is a clock. Name a set of physical
conditions that alters the rate of alpha-decay. Relativistic vleocity
vs. an inertial observer won't do it - in fact, it proves my point.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AllYou! |
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 1:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:428259F9.B9608A2B@hate.spam.net...
[quote:81f5636f79]"AllYou!" wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42823C85.B977CB6E@hate.spam.net...
riedt1@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept.
[snip crap]
Tell that to radioactive decay half-life.
Your notion of time could be totally eliminated, and nothing would change WRT
radioactive
decay.
You are horribly wrong. Half-life is a clock. Name a set of physical
conditions that alters the rate of alpha-decay. Relativistic vleocity
vs. an inertial observer won't do it - in fact, it proves my point.
[/quote:81f5636f79]
Are you claiming that the intellectual concept of time alters the rate of alpha-decay? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dr *** |
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 2:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115829253.4fad2d0c58455cede950b0e00f084225@teranews...
On a sunny day (Wed, 11 May 2005 15:23:43 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <3spge.74277$c24.37236@attbi_s72>:
[quote:240dafa4bf]There has NEVER been a prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted
by an observation. NEVER!
eh, WHERE ARE THE GRAVITY WAVES?[/quote:240dafa4bf]
See: http://panteltje.com/rotfl.gif
Do you mind if I use your gif on my web site Jan, at some time?
--
Dr *** energy/time/size Allways looking for a picnic basket Boo Boo.
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Minor updates but the turnips
are coming up nicely. Ooh ah.{ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jan Panteltje |
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 2:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On a sunny day (Wed, 11 May 2005 16:55:40 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <gOqge.71964$NU4.17381@attbi_s22>:
[quote:c29931b6ec]Jan Panteltje wrote:
eh, WHERE ARE THE GRAVITY WAVES?
See: http://panteltje.com/rotfl.gif
Have you ever calculated the amplitude of Gravity waves for various
sources, Jan? Or even looked up other's calculation?
Dear Sam, I have been to the LIGO site, the calculations are there.[/quote:c29931b6ec]
They should have a signal above noise now, but they do not.
You know YOU are the one who posted about that funny thing on the ...server
that had physicist train 'anti stress' or something by calculating the
amplitude of gravity waves LOL.
I have been programming all day, nothing but math, and a lot more hardware
to boot.
Those extremely stupido silly calculations are based on the small brain man EInStEiN
and ASSUME gravity waves originate form some orbiting stars.
There are no gravity waves.
Call in next year again for a reality check.
And, if you EVER did those (stress relief?) calculations yourself, did you
take into account the fact that gravity MUST have a finite range?
It is quantisized, (well EiNsTeIn conflicts with quantization but that is your
idols problem).
Anything that consists of quanta is not infinitely divisible, and thus has a
finite range.
I would think the tinkerers at LIGO would have figured that, but they likely
needed money for the largest MM experiment ever 
And null result.
There must be a mechanism for gravity, and IF it is a particle, it is quantized,
and it has finite range.
Bring it in your calculations too.
eInStEiN was WRONG about gravity waves.
And very likely a few more things too I think. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jan Panteltje |
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 2:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On a sunny day (Wed, 11 May 2005 12:16:09 -0700) it happened Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in <428259F9.B9608A2B@hate.spam.net>:
[quote:c16e8a842e]"AllYou!" wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42823C85.B977CB6E@hate.spam.net...
riedt1@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept.
[snip crap]
Tell that to radioactive decay half-life.
Your notion of time could be totally eliminated, and nothing would change WRT radioactive
decay.
You are horribly wrong. Half-life is a clock. Name a set of physical
conditions that alters the rate of alpha-decay. Relativistic vleocity
vs. an inertial observer won't do it - in fact, it proves my point.
[/quote:c16e8a842e]
Seems others have a different opinion:
http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.552.html
I get a lot of hits on changing alpha decay. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al |
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 2:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"AllYou!" wrote:
[quote:e39fa82208]
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:428259F9.B9608A2B@hate.spam.net...
"AllYou!" wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42823C85.B977CB6E@hate.spam.net...
riedt1@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept.
[snip crap]
Tell that to radioactive decay half-life.
Your notion of time could be totally eliminated, and nothing would change WRT
radioactive
decay.
You are horribly wrong. Half-life is a clock. Name a set of physical
conditions that alters the rate of alpha-decay. Relativistic vleocity
vs. an inertial observer won't do it - in fact, it proves my point.
Are you claiming that the intellectual concept of time alters the rate of alpha-decay?
[/quote:e39fa82208]
Do you work at being ignorant? If so, then you are accomplishing
something tangible.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jan Panteltje |
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 3:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On a sunny day (Wed, 11 May 2005 21:12:57 +0100) it happened "Dr ***"
<paulpsremove@freeuk.com> wrote in
<1115843033.8800.1@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net>:
[quote:7768473edb]
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115829253.4fad2d0c58455cede950b0e00f084225@teranews...
On a sunny day (Wed, 11 May 2005 15:23:43 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <3spge.74277$c24.37236@attbi_s72>:
There has NEVER been a prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted
by an observation. NEVER!
eh, WHERE ARE THE GRAVITY WAVES?
See: http://panteltje.com/rotfl.gif
Do you mind if I use your gif on my web site Jan, at some time?
No no problem, yahoo is where I got if from:[/quote:7768473edb]
http://messenger.yahoo.com/emoticons.php;_ylt=An2SWnL.AJsizJXjbitOVnRwMMIF
Seems to be free, use 'save image as'.
I like applause too. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 5:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
[quote:226c68936c]Dear Sam, I have been to the LIGO site, the calculations are there.
They should have a signal above noise now, but they do not.
[/quote:226c68936c]
Remember J. Taylor & R. Hulse 1993 Nobel Prize... This fall, LIGO
scientists hope to conduct their first serious, around the clock
search for gravity waves. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 10:39 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 2847
|
| Time moves forward in all *curved* directions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 11:28 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 2847
|
EL wrote:
[quote:60a7663b28][Nick wrote]
{> Time moves forward in all *curved* directions.}
[EL]
Although I full heartedly agree with what I believe that you wish to
say, I find myself compelled to tell you that time does not "move"
[/quote:60a7663b28]
Time doesn't move?
It isn't still. Time is never still.
What if you can catch up to it?
Speeding up slows time. Time's motion can be seen by
the speed of light. You can catch up to time/light by
speeding up through space. That is why time slows.
You can catch up to time.
That is relativity!
Mitch -- Light Falls -- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
